Why a S2000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaz

Ghost has said it in one, mass production and nearly all parts on a HSV not being as good a quality.

Also Honda is aware of the market the S2000 is catered for, honda will more then likley never produce such a car as the S2000 again as they have not profited as much from it as they had hoped as even Honda is swinging away from producing the cars we love to cars that are more profitable for them thats why nearly every new Honda no longer has double wishbone front and rear along with a thousand other changes.

The S2000 has one of the most efficent and Pwr per Ltr engines ever created, placed just forward of centre for great balance with Double wishbone all round.

---

I agree with Mr Slaz here ....

also like to add that Honda made the s2000 as a bday present for itself. Hond's quality and technology compared to Holdens, from my experience is quite supperior.

Ive owned 3 10yr+ old Hondas and my parents trade in their commodore every couple of years for the newest model. Ive done hybrid swaps, suspension installs etc etc and honestly they're cars seem to have alot more problems than mine ever have. I love the build quality of Honda's and the technology they incorperate into the whole design process, especially compared to mass producing over priced cars like Holdens.

Ive driven a few s2000's and they are such great cars. I dont think i could find a flaw in the design apart from theres no passanger side glovebox :p But what it all comes down to is what is right for you... some people need the raw power of a V8 HSV (and the 100km per tank fuel milage :p ) where as others, like myself, are very content with an s2000 being a luxury, prestiege, classy convertable that can still run sub 14 seconds on quater mile (if speed is your only concern) with little modification.

Its a convertable! lol yeah I wouldnt buy an s2k brand new, im lookin to get a 2nd hand one as my next car. Like fly said, 2nd hand are only around 40k and theyre still great. The s2k doesnt consume as much fuel as a HSV and has much better handling. The HSV is just brute v8 power is all, nothing else special about it, wheras the s2k is a beuatiful car all round (plus not many ppl have them, so ull get noticed if you do it up)

like paying $120mill for shaq....or $120mill for lebron...depends what your team needs!

shit like its tight chassis, 50:50 weight distribution, awesome handling characteristics, the short ratio gearbox, short throw shift etc make the s2k a true driver's car ie the driver is a very much "at one" with the car.
it might not have massive amounts of power/torque on tap but the driving experience is way ahead of many cars priced below (and above)

You have to see how both cars were developed to understand the cost.

S2000: Started selling in 1999. All new chassis with emphasis to stiffness. If I remember correctly, it was one of the stiffest convertibles of its time. The retractable softtop was also the fastest compared to the SLK, BMW M roadster and Boxster. It was also one of the fastest, except for the M roadster beating it. Back in 1999, what were the alternatives? The best was the S15 200sx (which was similar in 400m times but much slower in autocross and worse in handling stock for stock). Even a suspension modded S15 was slower on the wet auto cross than the stock 1999 S2000 (source is Best Motoring s2000 review). And the engine..... 6 years ago, no one heard of an engine pushing 120hp/litre. Even the mighty E36 M3 convertible made 316hp out of 3.2L for 98.75hp/litre and a price of $147,500. It was developed from scratch to be the best open top, small capacity, high revving roadster of its time. Its competition in 1999 were the SLK230 (194.5hp, $96,274) and Z3 2.0L (147.5hp, $74,380). That's why it was priced at the 70k mark, to match the BMW Z3 while providing more power with good handling. Of course the Z3 2.0L was no match, so Best Motoring raced it against the M roadster...

HSV:
The base chassis comes from the Commodore. Since it is a sedan, it is inherently stiffer than a convertible without the need for a lot of stiffening. Of course, since it has lots more power compared to a stock SS, it still gets stiffened. But the cost of chassis development is absorbed by the Commodore because it sells in very large numbers. The money going into the chassis is very small compared to developing a convertible from scratch.
The engine on the other hand gets the money put into it, hence the nice increase in power and torque numbers. It used to be cheaper by tuning, but now HSV likes the 6.0L V8s, so that takes up a bit more money.
Of course, the interior gets spiffed up and all the nice ornamental touches are put in such as the bodykit and exhaust tuned for power and sound.

In the end, the S2000 cost more to develop because it was done from scratch and the numbers sold are very low that the price has to be higher to recover the cost. The HSV on the other hand has a "free" base chassis (development-wise) which is covered by the great sales of the commodore. The extra $20k that the HSV costs goes a long way and so you get a car that is a beast compared to the SS.

I won't deny that the HSV is a good car (at least before the petrol price hike), and the S2000 itself is a different type of car. The amount of money you pay for both cars are because of the vastly different developmental costs going into them.

Edit: Because of my poor communication skills... the phrase "And the engine..... 6 years ago, no one heard of an engine pushing 120hp/litre." refers to N/A... sorry for the confusion :)

If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...usa_shifty.gif

Completly agree aaronng,

It's up to the individual to decide what's better value or not...
Some ppl prefer a porsche cayenne turbo, where as i would take a mod'd r34 gtr
Some would take a bently over a ferrari:confused: ,
point is every1 is different which is good, otherwise we wouldn't have such a large variety of sports cars in australia


General discussion on topics like these is a waste of space anyway imo (which i've jus contributed...:rolleyes: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Chanel

If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...usa_shifty.gif

---

Thats sorta tru. S2K is designed as a high revving engine which at times can be a bitch to drive around town. In my old EM1 i shifted gears at 2-2.5k rpm in the S i shift gears around 3-4k rpm. ALso one good thing about the S2K since its release in 1999 it still hasnt changed much as oppose to the holdens or fords. A timeless shape and design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Chanel

If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...usa_shifty.gif

---

yeh u'd have to rev about 4-5k rpm to change gears, but its still a very fuel economical car compared to a hsv....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Chanel

If its the R8 or sedan, id pick the s2000, if its the gts or gto coupe, then id get the hsv cuz the s2k's a bit watered down for my liking. To get somewhere ud have to rev the s2k's boobies off (its better for track).. for for everyday, ud get more out of the hsv i think.. correct me if im worng http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...usa_shifty.gif

---

For normal driving and cruising, I'd pick HSV. But when I am in the need to rev some boobies off, then I'll choose the S2K. Given an ideal world, I'd have my usual ride (Euro) as a daily driver and the S2k for the weekends when I am feeling cruel towards the engine. hehe. :)
I don't think I'd buy a HSV in real life though. Because of fuel concerns.

As a bit of triva, the Ferrari 208 GTB Turbo was pushing out 110bhp/litre from a 2.0 V8....and that was in 1980!

In 1984 the GTO produced 140bhp/litre.....

The awesome F40 was pushing 163bhp/litre in 1987....but that is one of the most fantastic cars ever built

So Ferrari have been producing some awesome figures since the beginning of the 80s...but we all know fez is in a different league...

Other more "mainstream" manufacurers can't match the levels of performance that that the awesome F20C creates....the s2k is a special car built for a niche market.

HSVs, whilst good cars and slowly coming up to speed, offer something different again and appeal to more mainstream wannabe V8 supercar racers.

But but but... all those are turbos..... I was thinking N/A